******************************************************************************

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Information only.

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM: 4 – P

DATE: January 26, 2017

******************************************************************************

SUBJECT: Concurrent Credit Analysis

During their October 2016 meeting, the Board of Regents reviewed an analysis on the High

School Dual Credit which produced a number of questions about how Concurrent Credit operates

within the Regental system. To respond to the questions raised during the meeting, and a number

of follow-up queries, the Concurrent Credit Analysis (see Attachment I) was prepared and shared

with the Board members.

1

*** Special Data Analysis ***

Concurrent Credit in the

Regental System

The Regental system has been involved in the delivery of Concurrent Credit activities for

more than two decades through engagement with a number of South Dakota School

Districts. Despite the expansion of the High School Dual Credit program beginning in

2014, campuses have continued to work with districts to serve their concurrent enrollment

needs. This report provides an in-depth look at recent concurrent enrollments, student

matriculation, and academic performance for data that are most recently available.

Despite the recent creation of the High School Dual Credit (HSDC) program in 2014, the

Regental system has been engaged in the delivery of Concurrent Credit for almost two decades.

As a point of distinction, “Dual Credit” when used to describe the HSDC program reflects college

coursework completed by high school students which simultaneously enroll traditional/non-

traditional college students. “Concurrent Credit,” however, represents high school students

enrolled in college coursework that is delivered by a qualified high school teacher, using the

syllabus developed by the partner institution, under the mentorship of a qualified faculty member.

Similar to dual credit activity, students earn both high school and college credit during their

experience; however only high school students are enrolled in the course. Regental institutions

are allowed to offer concurrent credit opportunities to participating high schools in South Dakota,

and must operate under Board of Regents Policy 5:3:3 Tuition and Fees: Special Course Types

seeking a request for an externally sponsored tuition rate of $40 per credit hour.1 These requests

are approved by the System Vice President for Academic Affairs in advance of the course offerings

and denoted on the Executive Director’s Interim Action Report included on each of the Board of

Regents meeting agendas. Attachment II provides a sample of a concurrent credit request for Fall

2016, and prior to approval a review occurs at the central office to ensure that: 1) a formal

agreement between institutions exists; 2) a copy of the approved syllabus is jointly constructed by

the faculty lead and high school teacher; 3) there is a designation for a faculty mentor; and 4)

1 Under this model, the instructional costs associated with delivering the course are provided by the school district

through the employment of the high school teacher. Specifically section E. of this policy outlines the requirements

that institutions are expected to maintain.

E. Externally Supported Courses: Use of this special self-support rate for either undergraduate or graduate

courses requires approval from the System Academic Officer.

1. Use of this rate has been approved for courses supported by the TII Part A, Improving Teacher

Quality State Grants.

2. Use of this rate for other courses must be approved by the System Academic Officer before the

course is advertised.

3. The third party must pay for the instructor’s salary (see BOR Policy 2:12 and COHE agreement),

course materials, and travel expenses for the instructor.

2

evidence of a Master’s Degree in the discipline, or 15 hours of graduate level coursework in the

content area (note that an official transcript traditionally accompany these requests.

Prior to the creation of the HSDC program, a significant number of the credit hours brought

in by students who earn “dual credit” represented concurrent credit activities delivered either by

Regental institutions or external institutions who abide by Board of Regents requirements. When

concurrent credit activity began to increase more than a decade ago, the Board of Regents

established that before a Regental institution could accept this credit from an external institution,

the institution must enter into an agreement that affirms the standards outlined by the Board. These

requirements were most recently revised by the Board during their March-April 2010 meeting, and

have now been carried forward into the AAC Dual /Concurrent Credit Administration Guidelines

that manage both HSDC and Concurrent Credit activities in the Regental system. Most recently,

these guidelines were reviewed by the Board of Regents during their April 2015 meeting followed

by a more comprehensive report on Dual and Concurrent Credit activities at the December 2015

meeting. Institutions depicted in Table 1 below have either signed agreements with the South

Dakota Board of Regents, or have earned National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships

(NACEP) accreditation.

Table 1

Regional Institutions with Signed Agreements with the South Dakota Regental System or Having

Established National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP) Accreditation

Institutions with Signed Agreements Regional Campuses with NACEP Accreditation

Dakota Wesleyan University (SD)

Kilian Community College (SD)

Mount Marty College (SD)

Iowa Western Community College (IA)

Western Iowa Tech Community College

(IA)*

Metropolitan Community College (NE)

Wyoming Community Colleges (WY)

Riverland Community College (MN)*

North Dakota University System (ND)

University of Mary (ND)

Minnesota State University, Mankato (MN)*

Fond du Lac Tribal & Comm. College (MN)

Sitting Bull College (SD)

Iowa Central Community College

Southwest Minnesota State University

Minnesota State Community & Tech College

Eastern Iowa Community College

Hawkeye Community College

Indian Hills Community College

Iowa Valley Community College District

Kirkwood Community College

Northeast Iowa Community College

North Iowa Area Community College

Northwest Iowa Community College

Southwestern Community College

Central Lakes College

Mesabi Range Community and Tech College

Northland Community and Technical College

St. Cloud State University

University of Minnesota ~ Crookston

University of Minnesota ~ Duluth

University of Minnesota ~ Twin Cities

Nebraska Wesleyan University

Laramie County Community College

Sheridan College

*Institution has also established NACEP Accreditation.

3

Fall 2016 Concurrent Credit Enrollments

During the Fall 2016 term, three Regental institutions (BHSU, NSU & SDSU) sought

approval to deliver Concurrent Credit coursework with South Dakota School districts. Currently,

a total of 15 districts contract with Regental campuses to deliver coursework through externally

supported tuition rate requests. Eligibility requirements are outlined in the AAC Dual/Concurrent

Credit Guidelines stipulating that “All students in a concurrent enrollment course should be

enrolled for college credit. However, since meeting this standard is a problem for the state’s

smaller school districts, at a minimum more than 50% of the students in a high school-based dual

enrollment course must be enrolled for college credit.” All sections offered this Fall are in

compliance with this requirement, with six courses having credit bearing enrollments below the

70% threshold. The current enrollments for the 27 sections being offered during Fall 2016 can be

found in Table 2 below which represents a total of 1,053 students enrolled across the 15 districts

with 862 (82%) enrolled for college concurrent credit. This compares to 1,793 unduplicated HSDC

student enrollments for the Fall 2016 term with students enrolling in a total of 2,590 individual

courses. Table 2

Course Enrollments for School Districts Offering Concurrent Credit Through the Regental System

High School Course Total

Enrollment

Enrolled for

Credit

% Earning

Credit

Black Hills State University

RC Stevens HS MATH 102: College Algebra 15 9 60%

Belle Fourche HS BIOL 101/L: Biology Survey I & Lab 28 23 82%

Spearfish HS PHYS 111/L: Introduction to Physics/Lab 33 28 85%

Spearfish HS ENGL 101: Composition I 52 52 100%

Sturgis HS MATH 102: College Algebra 12 12 100%

Northern State University

Aberdeen HS HIST 151: US History I 32 19 59%

Mitchell HS MATH 102: College Algebra 92 57 62%

Mitchell HS ART 121: Design I, 2D 24 15 63%

Brandon V. HS MATH 102: College Algebra 100 65 65%

Watertown HS ENGL 101: Composition I 69 46 67%

Mitchell HS HIST 151: US History I 20 15 75%

Brandon V. HS MATH 123: Calculus I 68 54 79%

Brandon V. HS BIOL 101/L: Biology Survey I & Lab 54 43 80%

Brandon V. HS BIOL 151/L: General Biology I & Lab 54 43 80%

Mitchell HS BIOL 151/L: General Biology I & Lab 38 32 84%

Brandon V. HS HIST 151: US History I 65 60 92%

Brandon V. HS ENGL 101: Composition I 103 97 94%

Canton HS ENGL 101: Composition I 32 31 97%

Deuel HS BIOL 151/L: General Biology I & Lab 13 13 100%

Huron HS BIOL 151/L: General Biology I & Lab 10 10 100%

Deuel HS BIOL 153/L: General Biology II & Lab 11 11 100%

Huron HS CHEM 106/L: Chemistry Survey & Lab 8 8 100%

Aberdeen Ron. HS ENGL 101: Composition I 16 16 100%

TF Riggs HS HIST 121: Western Civilization I 19 19 100%

South Dakota State U.

Madison HS HIST 151: US History I 24 23 96%

Brookings HS ENGL 101: Composition I 43 43 100%

Madison HS HIST 152: US History II 18 18 100%

4

Additionally, guidelines also indicate that: 1) the high school teacher must have a master’s

degree in the discipline/subject or 15 graduate hours in the content area; 2) a faculty member in

the discipline be assigned to actively engage as a mentor; 3) the syllabus is developed by the faculty

member at the institution granting the credit; and 4) student evaluation and assessments are

developed jointly by the faculty and high school teacher with the same content mastery as expected

for college students. In particular, there are a number of reasons for the variation that exists in the

enrollment percentages for credit at the local school districts. First, the individual student

eligibility criteria establishes a high threshold for student enrollment for credit in the approved

courses which are outlined below.

1. Student Eligibility (Applicants must meet the criteria in one of the following three

requirements):

a. High School Junior eligible to enroll in a high school in South Dakota who

meets one of the following requirements:

i. Meet ACT college-ready benchmarks in all subtests; OR

ii. Rank in the upper one-third of their class; OR

iii. Score at or above the 70th percentile on a nationally standardized,

norm-referenced test, such as the ACT or SAT;

b. High School Senior eligible to enroll in a high school in South Dakota who

meets one of the following requirements:

i. Meet ACT college-readiness benchmarks in all subtests; OR

ii. Rank in the upper one-half of their class; OR

iii. Score at or above the 50th percentile on the nationally standardized,

Norm-referenced test, such as the ACT or SAT;

c. High School Junior or Senior eligible to enroll in a high school in South

Dakota who meets all of the following Undergraduate admissions

requirements:

i. ACT score of 18 (or 21 for USD & SDSM&T); and

ii. Successful completion of coursework requirements

Four Years of English

Three years of advanced mathematics

Three years of laboratory science

Three years of social studies

One year of fine arts

Students in the participating districts may have a desire to enroll in the course being

offered; however they are unable to enroll for college credit because they fail to meet one of the

three eligibility criteria outlined above. A number of districts establish their own requirements for

student entry into concurrent credit courses (i.e., the primary explanation for 100% credit bearing

enrollments), while others are still interested in allowing students to enroll in the course to take

advantage of the course offering by their existing staff. Second, despite the reduced cost of $40

per credit hour, there are a number of eligible students who can successfully complete the rigorous

course requirements, however they are unable to afford the $120 to $160 cost associated with

earning credit without financial aid options.

5

Concurrent Credit Matriculation

The detailed cost and performance analysis on the High School Dual Credit report provided

to the Board during the October 2016 meeting indicated that 49.7% of the credit hours completed

by seniors participating in the HSDC program transferred into the Regental system the year after

graduation. To determine whether the same trend existed for the Concurrent enrollment students,

institutions were asked to identify the seniors served during the 2015-16 academic year and were

matched against student enrollments within the Regental system during the Fall 2016 term. Table

3 below denotes that a total of 956 seniors were enrolled during these two terms, and a total of 509

(53.2%) were enrolled in the Regental system the following year. These numbers are consistent

with HSDC matriculation in that the majority of students eventually enrolled in Regental

institutions that did not provide their concurrent credit coursework. For example the largest

number of matriculated students (224 or 23.4%) attended SDSU despite serving only 53 (5.5%) of

the total enrollments. Inversely, NSU served 691 students resulting in 72% of the concurrent credit

activity in the system, with only 13 (1.4%) of the students eventually enrolling at that institution.

Table 3

Matriculation of High School Concurrent Enrollments into the Regental System in Fall 2016

Institution 2015-16

Enrollments BHSU DSU NSU SDSM&T SDSU USD

Non-

Regental

BHSU 212 45 1 1 20 19 13 113

NSU 691 27 18 11 20 192 112 311

SDSU 53 0 10 1 3 13 3 23

Total 956 72 29 13 43 224 128 447

BHSU 22.2% 4.7% 0.1% 0.1% 2.1% 2.0% 1.4% 11.8%

NSU 72.3% 2.8% 1.9% 1.2% 2.1% 20.1% 11.7% 32.5%

SDSU 5.5% 0.0% 1.0% 0.1% 0.3% 1.4% 0.3% 2.4%

Total % 100% 7.5% 3.0% 1.4% 4.5% 23.4% 13.4% 46.8%

The enrollments depicted in Table 3 above were also compared against those students who

were also enrolled in HSDC coursework during this same academic term. Overall, a total of 192

(21%) of the students enrolled in the concurrent credit sections were also enrolled in HSDC

coursework at one of the six Regental institutions. The highest percentage appeared to be from

BHSU with 84 (40%) of their students simultaneously enrolled compared to only 92 (13%) for

NSU students (see Figure 1).

6

Figure 1

Student Simultaneous Enrollment in HSDC and Concurrent Credit Coursework During the 2015-16

Academic Year

Student Academic Performance

The admission criteria for entry into Concurrent Credit courses are identical to those

requirements for entry into the HSDC courses. During their October 2016 meeting, the Board

reviewed an analysis that evaluated the academic performance of HSDC students once they arrived

within the Regental system and began taking coursework throughout the 2015-16 term. It is

realistic to assume that academic performance of Concurrent Credit students would be consistent

considering the admission criteria that have been established. As additional evidence of student

long term success, an analysis had been prepared for the Academic Affairs Council in 2014 using

data available from the High School Transition Report to determine the relative academic success

of students who entered with concurrent credit from South Dakota high schools. This analysis

depicts the overall success of students prior to the time that HSDC was implemented in South

Dakota. The complete analysis can be found in Attachment I, with both the descriptive and

regression analyses performed indicating the “positive relationship between concurrent credit

participation and first-year academic performance.”

128

599

3784 92

16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

BHSU NSU SDSU

Concurrent HSDC/Concurrent

*** Special Data Analysis ***

Postsecondary Outcomes of

Concurrent Credit Students

“Concurrent Credit” programs – which allow qualified high school students to earn college

credit while still enrolled in high school – have become ubiquitous in the United States. The

Education Commission of the States (ECS) reports that forty-six US states maintain a state-level

program for dual enrollment delivery, and the National Association for College Admission

Counseling (NACAC) estimates that 88.8% of US public high schools offer concurrent credit

opportunities.1 In fact, some states have pushed the envelope so far as to encourage students to

complete entire associate’s degree programs before finishing high school.2 But do students

participating in these programs experience any educational benefit from having done so? The

current analysis explores this question by examining the postsecondary outcomes of students

entering the Regental system after earning concurrent credits.

Policy Background

For nearly two decades, the South Dakota Board of Regents has provided an administrative

framework for concurrent credit offerings in the state. There are two main routes by which

students may earn college credit in the Regental system through coursework delivered in a high

school classroom: 1) transferring in credits earned in concurrent credit courses offered by non-

Regental institutions, and 2) taking concurrent credit courses offered directly by Regental

institutions. The Board’s central policy statement with respect to concurrent credit is found in

BOR Policy 2:5:3f:1, which pertains mainly to the first of these routes.3 This policy specifies the

conditions under which (non-Regental) high school coursework may be accepted for college-level

credit by Regental institutions. Under this policy, college credit may be awarded for high school

coursework meeting one of three criteria:

1) Student achievement has been validated through AP or CLEP testing

(OR)

2) College credit was issued (in the original concurrent credit course) by a postsecondary

institution with which SDBOR has an existing concurrent credit agreement

(OR)

3) College credit was issued (in the original concurrent credit course) by a postsecondary

institution accredited by the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships

1 Education Commission of the States (2008). Dual enrollment. Retrieved from http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=950;

National Association for College Admission Counseling (2011). 2011 State of College Admissions. Retrieved from

http://www.nacacnet.org/research/research-data/Documents/2011SOCA.pdf 2 Utah’s “New Century Scholarship” provides funding to qualified students (i.e., those earning an associate’s degree by the time

of high school graduation) who subsequently attempt to complete a four-year degree at an eligible in-state institution. For

general information, see http://www.higheredutah.org/scholarship_info/new-century-scholarship/ 3 Policy text available at http://www.sdbor.edu/policy/2-Academic_Affairs/documents/2-5.pdf

ATTACHMENT I 7

The delivery of concurrent credit courses by Regental institutions is regulated by policy guidelines adopted

by AAC and affirmed by COPS.4 These guidelines (which also serve as the basis for the inter-institutional

concurrent enrollment agreements noted above) lay out comprehensive rules and procedures for such

courses, including:

- Admission criteria for concurrent credit high school students

- Required qualifications for on-site high school teachers

- Participation of a supervising Regental faculty member

- Provisions for the development of a course syllabus and grading plan

The above policies and guidelines are meant to safeguard the academic integrity of concurrent credit

enrollment coursework, and consequently to ensure that students completing such coursework do in fact

benefit scholastically from their efforts. Across a range of indicators – from academic preparation to

enrollment persistence, and student achievement to degree completion – participation in concurrent credit

programs should serve as a springboard for a range of future postsecondary successes. In general, existing

scholarship has indeed linked concurrent credit enrollment participation to an array of improved academic

outcomes.5

But are such benefits realized in South Dakota? On the whole, there appears to be reason for optimism.

South Dakota has been recognized as a national exemplar for its concurrent credit enrollment management

practices. The National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP), for example,

highlighted South Dakota as a model for its efforts to establish uniform, rigorous quality assurance

standards.6 SDBOR has established robust concurrent credit agreements with nearly twenty different

postsecondary institutions and systems, in addition to forming tacit agreements with a more than eighty

other institutions via NACEP accreditation. Altogether then, the current analysis was conducted in order

to assess the postsecondary value (or lack thereof) of concurrent credit participation in the South Dakota

context.

Dataset and Purpose

SDBOR High School Transition Report (HSTR) datasets provide information on students matriculating to

the Regental system immediately after graduating from a South Dakota high school. The current analysis

relied on a “retrofitted” HSTR dataset using data from the Fall 2006 entering cohort. As a result, the

analyzed dataset included data for all first-time, full-time, (bachelor’s) degree-seeking students entering a

Regental university in Fall 2006 (after having graduated from an in-state high school during the preceding

school year). The analysis tracks these students through the subsequent six academic years (AY2006-2007

through AY2011-2012) to assess differences in academic performance between 1) students who completed

concurrent credit coursework prior to entering college, and 2) students who did not complete such

coursework. It should be noted that the postsecondary entry of the Fall 2006 cohort predates SDBOR’s

current concurrent credit policy framework. As a result, this analysis is not intended as a narrow evaluation

of SDBOR’s current policy, but as a broad appraisal of the concurrent credit concept.

4 These guidelines were last modified in March 2010. For text and further discussion of these guidelines, see

http://www.sdbor.edu/services/academics/DualCredit/documents/guidelines_dual-credit_BOR03-2010.pdf and

http://www.sdbor.edu/theboard/agenda/2011/documents/Z.pdf 5 For examples, see North, T. & Jacobs, J. (2010). Dual credit in Oregon – 2010 follow-up: An analysis of students

taking dual credit in high school in 2007-08 with subsequent performance in college. Office of Institutional

Research, Oregon University System. Retrieved from http://www.ous.edu/sites/default/files/dept/ir/reports/

dualcredit/DualCredit2010FINAL.pdf and Swanson, J.L., (2008). An analysis of the impact of high school dual

enrollment course participation on post-secondary academic success, persistence, and degree completion. The

University of Iowa, College of Education. Retrieved from: http://nacep.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2008

_joni_swanson_summary.pdf 6 National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (2010). Promoting quality: State strategies for

overseeing dual enrollment programs. Retrieved from http://nacep.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/NACEP

_Promoting_Quality_Report_2010.pdf

ATTACHMENT I 8

Analysis

Of the n=2,649 students in the analyzed dataset (i.e., all bachelor’s degree-seeking students from the Fall

2006 HSTR cohort), approximately 17.8% (n=472) had earned concurrent credit prior to enrolling in the

Regental system, while the remaining 82.2% (n=2,177) had not. Table 1 presents a comprehensive

comparison of these two groups using a wide array of both pre-entry and post-entry performance indicators.

As seen below, the completion of concurrent credit coursework in high school appears to be positively and

strongly associated with other measures of academic preparation and performance. “Concurrent enrollers”

appear to outperform other students with respect to ACT performance, remedial (non-) placement, first year

GPA, second year retention, and persistence to degree completion. Perhaps most striking among the figures

shown here is that students with concurrent credits “out-graduated” students with no such credit by a

difference of 40.5% to 22.4% (four-year rates) and 74.2% to 54.0% (six-year rates). Such disparities signal

clear differences in these students’ likelihood for postsecondary success.

Table 1: Comparison of Concurrent Credit Students with All Other (non-Concurrent Credit) Students

Fall 2006 SDBOR High School Transition Report Cohort, Bachelor’s-Seekers Only

All Other

Students

(n=2,177)

Concurrent

Enrolling†

(n=472)

ACT Performance

Met All Four ACT Benchmarks 29.8% 49.4%

Mean ACT English 21.7 23.9

Mean ACT Math 22.4 24.2

Mean ACT Science 22.6 24.2

Mean ACT Composite 22.6 24.4

Remedial Placement

Remedial Placement (English) 12.8% 6.2%

Remedial Placement (Math) 25.7% 11.2%

Remedial Placement (Either English OR Math) 30.5% 13.6%

Remedial Placement (Both English AND Math) 8.0% 3.8%

Other Preparation Indicators

SD Opportunity Scholarship Recipient 23.7% 51.5%

Awarded AP Credit 10.0% 12.3%

First-Year Academic Performance

Mean First-Year GPA 2.70 3.09

Mean First-Year Attempted Credit 26.2 29.3

Mean First-Year Completed Credit 24.4 28.4

Retention Rates

2nd Fall Retention at Same Institution 71.7% 84.3%

2nd Fall Retention at Any BOR Institution 77.1% 88.8%

Persistence to Completion

Bachelor's Seekers Earning a Bachelor's Degree in ≤4 Years 22.4% 40.5%

Bachelor's Seekers Earning a Bachelor's Degree in ≤6 Years 54.0% 74.2%

Average Time (in Years) to Bachelor's Degree Completion* 4.72 4.52

* for those completing in in ≤6 Years

† Includes students transferring in any number of credits earned prior to postsecondary entry (Fall 2006)

ATTACHMENT I 9

The above measures speak to a marked difference in academic performance between concurrent credit

and their non-concurrent credit peers. However, what is not clear from the above table is whether

concurrent credit participation itself actually contributed to these students’ successes. Since high-

achieving, college-bound students would seem most likely to complete concurrent credit coursework

in the first place, it stands to reason that the postsecondary achievements of these students may have

occurred even in the absence of concurrent enrollment participation. In this light, concurrent credit

might be seen more as an effect of postsecondary preparation than as a cause.

The regression analysis below was conducted in an attempt to test the independent, causal influence of

concurrent credit participation on subsequent academic performance. The key question targeted by the

regression model is this: after controlling for incoming ability, does concurrent credit participation

continue to act as an independent predictor of postsecondary academic performance? The model

operationally defines a student’s “incoming ability” as his or her ACT composite score, and defines

“postsecondary academic performance” as the student’s cumulative first-year GPA. Concurrent credit

participation is defined in the model as having transferred in any number of college credits earned prior

to entry. Results from the model are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Multivariate Regression: First-Year GPA and Concurrent Credit, Controlling for ACT7 Fall 2006 SDBOR High School Transition Report Cohort, Bachelor’s-Seekers Only

Results suggest that, even after controlling for incoming ability, the positive relationship between

concurrent credit participation and first-year academic performance remains intact. While

standardized beta coefficients indicate that ACT performance (“ACT”) may be a more forceful driver

of first-year GPA, concurrent credit participation (“DUAL”) is nonetheless a significant, positive

predictor. Inspection of the results from an alternative model (not shown here) using a non-transformed

iteration of first-year GPA suggests that completing even one course through concurrent credit may

deliver a predictive benefit equivalent to a two-point increase in ACT composite score. Overall, this

analysis provides preliminary evidence for the utility of concurrent credit programming.

7 The model was executed with ordinary least squares regression using White’s heteroskedasticity-consistent

covariance matrix correction (HC3) for robust standard error estimates. The two predictors (dual enrollment

participation and ACT composite score) were regressed on a power-transformed iteration of GPA.

_cons -4.507183 .4375457 -10.30 0.000 -5.365186 -3.64918

ACT .5566299 .0193185 28.81 0.000 .5187474 .5945124

DUAL .8969897 .1922562 4.67 0.000 .5199862 1.273993

GPA Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

Robust

Root MSE = 3.648

R-squared = 0.2603

Prob > F = 0.0000

F( 2, 2422) = 488.20

ACT 0.55663 28.813 0.000 2.0677 0.1313 0.4877 3.7147

DUAL 0.89699 4.666 0.000 0.3494 0.2116 0.0824 0.3895

GPA b t P>|t| bStdX bStdY bStdXY SDofX

ATTACHMENT I 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: D313035A-C1F3-48C6-9E15-71DB08D27F0D

12/1/2016

ATTACHMENT II 11

DocuSign Envelope ID: D313035A-C1F3-48C6-9E15-71DB08D27F0D ATTACHMENT II 12

DocuSign Envelope ID: D313035A-C1F3-48C6-9E15-71DB08D27F0D ATTACHMENT II 13

DocuSign Envelope ID: D313035A-C1F3-48C6-9E15-71DB08D27F0D ATTACHMENT II 14

DocuSign Envelope ID: D313035A-C1F3-48C6-9E15-71DB08D27F0D ATTACHMENT II 15

DocuSign Envelope ID: D313035A-C1F3-48C6-9E15-71DB08D27F0D ATTACHMENT II 16

DocuSign Envelope ID: D313035A-C1F3-48C6-9E15-71DB08D27F0D ATTACHMENT II 17

DocuSign Envelope ID: D313035A-C1F3-48C6-9E15-71DB08D27F0D ATTACHMENT II 18

DocuSign Envelope ID: D313035A-C1F3-48C6-9E15-71DB08D27F0D ATTACHMENT II 19

DocuSign Envelope ID: D313035A-C1F3-48C6-9E15-71DB08D27F0D ATTACHMENT II 20

DocuSign Envelope ID: D313035A-C1F3-48C6-9E15-71DB08D27F0D ATTACHMENT II 21

DocuSign Envelope ID: D313035A-C1F3-48C6-9E15-71DB08D27F0D ATTACHMENT II 22

DocuSign Envelope ID: D313035A-C1F3-48C6-9E15-71DB08D27F0D ATTACHMENT II 23

DocuSign Envelope ID: D313035A-C1F3-48C6-9E15-71DB08D27F0D ATTACHMENT II 24